Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Colin Campbell explains Ovechkin suspension

During an appearance on NHL Live Wednesday afternoon, NHL discipline chief Colin Campbell touched on many of the hot-button issues that have been percolating around his sport and his role in recent weeks. And, of course, he dealt with the Alex Ovechkin two-game suspension.

Campbell was sort of given a two-part question: to explain why Ovechkin was treated differently than Maxim Lapierre, who got a four-game rest for a hit Scott Nichol, and why Ovechkin got the two-game ban.

"Well Lapierre first of all didn't have a record," Campbell said. "It might have been more if he was a repeat offender. We felt when you watch the play he had no regard for the puck. In fact, the puck wasn't there. It was a useless play and a dangerous play at a point where I think all players know at that speed it's pretty reckless to give a guy a crosscheck in the middle of the back in the position he was in....We felt like that was a reckless play, but he was a first-time offender, so it was what it was, and it could have been worse....

"In Ovechkin's case, you're dealing with a player who, he's been suspended once," Campbell continued. "And we fined him once this year.

"So in talking with some guys the other day, having coached Mark Messier, Mark Messier was a big strong, what they call a moose, bull of a player. When he played, he played between 205 and 210. Ovechkin's at 235. And so what he did, I understand the Washington people feel that we might be picking on him and that we don't allow him to play his game, but I think they understand that at some point in time you've got to responsible and somewhat thoughtful when you're going into boards, boards that don't move....

"And so I think he has to be responsible in how he takes a [Brian] Campbell in, and what kind of position the other player's in. And he had moved the puck already, Campbell. Look, if there's no injury on the play, we probably, we don't do anything, but that's part of the supplemental discipline process. If you cause a player to be injured, then you have to be responsible for the play that you're involved in, if there's any carelessness or recklessness in it.

"And it's not Alexander's first issue. You know, we've dealt with a few others, and we've talked about that very aspect of the play. Now having said that, you enjoy him as a player and you like the fact that you have a finesse player that's also aggressive and plays both sides of the game. And hopefully we don't have to have a conversation ever again in his career."

The headline, of course, is Colin Campbell openly saying that had Chicago's defenseman not been hurt, Ovechkin probably wouldn't have been suspended. Sure, there are real-life examples people will point to in justifying such a policy (running a stop sign is treated more harshly if you crash into a baby than if nothing happens).

But as many have said using many words, if you want to change NHL behavior, you have to legislate against the act, not the consequences. Because otherwise, you're quite literally giving more incentive to hit big and sturdy players and protecting small and fragile players, and that just doesn't make any sense.

(These quotes were typed running and might be off by a word or two; will update with complete transcript later.)

UPDATED: Since some of you asked, the segment did indeed open with questions about the head shots debate and Matt Cooke's hit on Marc Savard. Campbell said they want to get a new rule in place as soon as possible, "so there's no gray areas here when something might happen." And he said the debate preceded even Mike Richards's hit on David Booth earlier this season.

"We've been dealing with these things on a rising kind of crescendo over the last number of years," Campbell said. "We increased the speed of the game of hockey, and at the same time players are getting bigger and faster and stronger. And we came out of the lockout with a great game, and we made it a better game to watch, a better game to play for the players....When we opened this game up, there was a ying for the yang, and we had a lot more car crashes, and the car crashes were legal, based upon shoulders hitting heads. (Emphasis added.)

"But we've got to make an attempt to reduce the concussions," Campbell continued, "and we've been doing that. And there was something that the managers didn't like last November -- they couldn't get a grasp around it -- but there was something they didn't like about the Richards-Booth hit and we've been working on that going into the [GMs] meeting....The Booth hit started it, and the Savard hit ended it this year, and so we were reminded quite graphically that it's something that we had to attend to."

By Dan Steinberg  |  March 17, 2010; 1:45 PM ET
Categories:  Caps  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama praises JTIII, disses Gary Williams
Next: Brooks Laich sets career highs

Comments

@Steinberg

Did he address why Cooke's hit and Downie's slew foot weren't suspended?

Posted by: Joran | March 17, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Why did someone ask him to Compare OV's punishment to a guy who got more games? Because the answer doesn't make sense in Context where Campbell says "He got more games because this was his first offense."

A better question would be to compare OV's suspension to Craig Adams' boarding of OV himself two months ago, or David Koci's Boarding of Mike Green - both of which didn't even draw a penalty, let alone a suspension.

Posted by: VTDuffman | March 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

@VTDuffman

I think Campbell's stance is "no harm, no foul" which is idiotic. I understand why the disciplinarian would want to weigh how badly the illegal hit injured a player, but that criteria has to be below "intent to injure" and "repeat offender" if the NHL wants to get rid of dangerous headshots.

Posted by: Joran | March 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone have the guts to ask him why then Cooke got off for his injury?

Posted by: GoCaps08 | March 17, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

It's quite clear at this point that Colin Campbell is in over his head with this whole issue of league discipline. He either lacks a philosophy of justice or has no idea how to apply that to instances of hits that come under review. He'd be in the clear if he had one philosophy (say, you punish based on the hit, or you punish based on the intent, or you punish based on the injury), but his decision-making criteria shift more often than daily.

A lawyer, ex-judge or experienced arbitrator (somebody, ANYBODY with real experience with legal philosophy) needs to be in charge of league discipline, not an ex-player. Until the league does that, every bad hit is just going to mean a spin on the Wheel of Justice. The league is better off doing ANYTHING consistently, even if it's the 'wrong' thing by punishing based on injury - at least then you'd know what you have.

The current system doesn't incentivize or disincentivize anything.

Posted by: KurtNYC | March 17, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Campbell's explanation is nothing new. We all knew that Ovi's hit/shove in the back did not warrant a suspension on its own. That very same irresponsible play happens numerous times each week and a handful of them don't even get called for a minor penalty, let alone a 5 minute major, game ejection, fine, and suspension. Campbell was disciplining Ovi based on the injury the hit caused - which raises even more questions:

What if Campbell (the one Ovi injured) had stayed down on the ice for a few minutes thinking he's badly hurt, but turns out it's nothing more than muscle spasm and he's out on the ice again 10 minutes later? Ovi is still ejected from the game.

Is the level of discipline based on the extent of the injury?

What if the player has an injury he is playing through? Or he had a previous injury that never healed 100%. Said player gets hit and the injury is now worse.

Or what if team doctors exaggerate an injury? Imagine if this were the playoffs and Ovi injures a 3rd liner. Team doctors claim the 3rd liner has significant injuries, but perhaps they exaggerate a little to influence the amount of games Ovi will be suspended for.

This is all just very ambiguous and I don't like it. I hate to beat a dead horse, but if Colin Campbell made is decision based on the injury, then why isn't Matt Cooke suspended for his malicious hit on Savard, who will most likely be out for the season?

Get your act together NHL!

Posted by: MillBurray | March 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

@VTDuffman -- You missed CC's point. His point was that although he had no priors La Pierre got four because it was an intentionally dangerous hit...Find the video, it's as cheap as the Cooke hit. Scot Nichol is lucky he didn't get as badly injured as B. Campbell. He went into the boards just as hard. CC said Ovie's hit wasn't intentionally dangerous. It was reckless. Ovie got two cause it was reckless and he was a repeat offender (and the injury was severe--like Steiny I don't think this should be part of the equation--intent means much more than result).

CC is not going to compare it to Cooke's cause he's already commented on that decision publicly.

The fact with the Cooke hit is that it was intentional and reckless and he has priors. Regardless of the fact that the hit to the wasn't against the rules, he (and Brad Richards similarly) should have been suspended 10-15 games.

The inconsistency is with the head shots not with Ovie's punishment IMO. Ovie's got a rap now. If he hurts people with play that's perceived to be borderline, he's gonna get the book thrown at him (and at this point it is all perception). It's just like with Chris Pronger. He's big and he hits, sometimes the hits are at or over the line and people are going to get hurt. You can almost count on Pronger missing a game or two per season via suspension. We (and Ovie) should just assume the same with Ovie and move on. He shouldn't change a thing.

Posted by: SuperG5 | March 17, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least the Emperor has publicly admitted he's wearing no clothes.

But given the NHL's admitted predilection for protecting the dainty, little guys from the big, mean guys, it's only a matter of time before we hear that Glen Sather has signed Jeffy "Pee-Wee" DuPuis, 7, leading goal-scorer for the Moosejaw Mighty Mites.

Posted by: jburksva | March 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I can't even believe Campbell said "Look, if there's no injury on the play, we probably, we don't do anything". That's RIDICULOUS! He has made an ass of himself again and is shining even more light on the fact that he's in over his head. The NHL needs to address the Colin Campbell issue before they can successfully address other issues. Get to the root of the problem.

Violence is part of the game. Finishing your check is part of the game. Guys getting hurt is part of the game. Head shots and INTENTIONAL knee to knee hits (i.e. sticking out your leg, NOT having the guy you're going to hit try to get out of the way) are what need to be addressed.

Colin Campbell is doing his job subjectively as are the officiating crews, and that cannot be used as a successful deterrent. Nobody knows what is legal at this point, and that's sad.

Draw a line and set up some guidelines. If the line is blurry, then you cannot suspend someone. if the line is crossed, they get a set amount of games.

Leadership can correct this problem. The NHL does not have the right leadership in place at this time. I hope they figure it out soon because it's turning into a circus...

Posted by: sca187 | March 17, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The NHL is a farce.

Posted by: JillC | March 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

so whats his explanation for the Cooke no-suspension ? thats the one thing he stayed away from that would shed the most light on why Ovechkin gets booted for a few games and Cooke still gets to play

Posted by: cstanton1 | March 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

His explanation demands an end to his reign as the league disciplinarian. He's making the rules up as he goes and none of it makes sense. He should do the NHL a favor and fall on his sword. (Wish Betteman would do the same...but I'd settle with Campbell.)

Posted by: illiad1 | March 17, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I didn't hear campbells radio interview, but did anyone ask him why adams (penquins), didn't reveive a penalty for boarding ovie, and was not fined or suspened for the same hit ovie put the blackhawk player?

How about the hit Matt Cooke put on Savard, and received no suspension time, this is another example of CAMPBELL'S obvious dislike and disdain for the CAP'S, and their organization, and the fact that a none canadien player is argubly the beat player in hockey!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: wwwgarnercrew215th | March 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

This reminds of Dale Hunter's suspension for his late hit on Pierre Turgeon in the 1993 playoffs.

Part of the rationale for handing Hunter a then NHL Record 21 game suspension was that Turgeon's injuries would leave the Islanders without his services for the remainder of the playoffs.

Turgeon was back in the Islanders' lineup by the end of the next round.

Posted by: CapsNut | March 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Comments like Campbell's put the NHL in danger of becoming footbal(soccer) where the perception is that anytime anybody is touched they go down to the ground like they've ruptured an Achilles tendon and writhe until a "card" is pulled. Then they jump up like nothing happened and get back into the game. Let us please try to avoid that at all costs, to a lot of Americans it makes soccer unwatchable.

Campbell's "justice" has been so capricious no one would have batted an eye if Richards had been suspended because he just should have. Find a reason; it was malicious with intent to injure.

Campbell is just as responsible for Savards injury as Cooke was. Cooke was just being the slime-ball that he is. He was given an open license on Savard because of the non-action on Richards and because he had done the same thing before with consequences. In the law justices’ sometime rule that some situation is “unconscionable”, regardless of what the law says. The Richards/Cooke hits were just that.

Posted by: giscone | March 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

to anyone who bothers to read what I just wrote I meant to say "without consequences", sorry.

Posted by: giscone | March 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

when the NHL and its players agree to a minimum standard of equipment protection, perhaps injuries could be taken into consideration. but when players refuse to protect themselves appropriately (newer helmets, mouthpieces, shoulder pads) then how can you asses a suspention based upon injury.

john erskine barely wears shoulder pads while ovi wears linebacker shoulder pads. if someone hits both players the same but erskine gets hurt, should the player who hit him have to suffer for erskines stupidity?

fyi, i dont know what helmet or shoulder pads brian campbell wears.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | March 17, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight and if I'm wrong someone please correct me. Colin Campbell is saying that the hit itself wasn't suspension worthy but became suspension worthy due to injury. Further, he is saying that Ovechkin has to be more careful than other players because he is bigger, faster, and stronger than most other players are. Do I have this correct?

Posted by: croftonpost | March 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Here's another idea. Since a player's size seems to determine whether he should make contact with another player, instead of the jersey numbers let’s put players weights on their jerseys. Then make it illegal to touch a player who weights, say 15 lbs, less than you do. Martin St Louis, with his skill and size, would have over 100 goals every year. Teams would recruit juniors for their "big club" then cut them when they matured physically. Naw that would just be silly! It would make is so a player would be penalized because they are bigger, stronger and still quicker than another player. Wait…..

Posted by: giscone | March 17, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Either this story has to be redacted better or something is missing. The whole thing doesn't make any sense and it leads to innuendos.

Posted by: nimes1 | March 17, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

As a middle school teacher I have heard kids come up with better BS answers on the spot than Campbell. He definitely would have failed my class.

And upon a little research, Colin Campbell's Pro career as a D-man spanned 11 seasons. Stats:
Goals: 26
Penalty Minutes: 1500

There is a word for that kind of player....I can't think of it right now....a little help?

Posted by: Rainier1 | March 17, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Translation: Ovechkin is not Canadian and he doesn't play for Pissburgh. So we had to find a way to suspend him.

BTW, does everyone realize that Colin Campbell played for Pissburgh? And his son plays for Florida, who is a division rival of the Capitals? No conflict of interest there right? What a joke.

Posted by: dcsportsdude | March 17, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The most intriguing point Campbell made was Ovie's size and strength, comparing him to Messier. Because Ovie is bigger (and faster) than Messier, is he supposed to play differently? Maybe not train so much? Slow down a bit? I have no idea why he made that comparison. The logic is the same play by a smaller person might have not injured Campbell. Then the penalty would have been less. Am I the only one going nuts with this logic?

Posted by: tedferragut | March 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"But as many have said using many words, if you want to change NHL behavior, you have to legislate against the act, not the consequences. Because otherwise, you're quite literally giving more incentive to hit big and sturdy players and protecting small and fragile players, and that just doesn't make any sense."

Stienberg...did you press him on the above? thats what i want to hear Campbell and Betman respond to...injury vs. intent and repeats...

also, as someone else pointed out above...why ovie and green got suspended for their hits and why people didnt get suspended for their similar hits on ovie and green...

why green got suspended for his hit to the head and why cook does not...

personally i dont think green elbowed anybody...i thought he went shoulder to head and it was from straight on...the player he hit went low, greens shoulder was up in teh face and elbow was up around his upper chest...really it looked to me like green targeted shoulder to shoulder but the guy went low so it was shoulder to head...

but no intent to injure vs. cooke and richards obvious intent to injure...isnt intent to injure within the bounds of roughing or unsportmanlike conduct...

someone really needs to press these guys on this stuff and not just let them answer them with their tunnel vision responses and meaningless comparisons...

Posted by: deadskin | March 17, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the solution is to have the Western Conference be a co-ed no check league.

Posted by: Freeman72 | March 17, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

But given the NHL's admitted predilection for protecting the dainty, little guys from the big, mean guys, it's only a matter of time before we hear that Glen Sather has signed Jeffy "Pee-Wee" DuPuis, 7, leading goal-scorer for the Moosejaw Mighty Mites.

Posted by: jburksva | March 17, 2010 2:33 PM

LOL!! Hilarious JB!

Posted by: LaureninGlenBurnie | March 17, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

So ov boards kaleta and knees Gleason and is suspended even though neither was seriously hurt. Green "elbows" frolic who is not seriously injured yet green gets three games. So why suspentions in those cases despite no injury? Koci slams green into the boards with no injury and no suspension...Campbell, despite having a difficult job, has to go.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | March 17, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

So ov boards kaleta and knees Gleason and is suspended even though neither was seriously hurt. Green "elbows" frolic who is not seriously injured yet green gets three games. So why suspentions in those cases despite no injury? Koci slams green into the boards with no injury and no suspension...Campbell, despite having a difficult job, has to go.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | March 17, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse


yes someone make campbell and betman explain these comparisons...the ones they are making dont address the confusion and inequity that we are seeing...

Posted by: deadskin | March 17, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"? If the NHL won't get rid of Colin Campbell, it should definitely not let him give interviews.

Posted by: ptallen | March 17, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Keep it up, NHL, and you'll have the same thing soccer has ... guys "diving" all over the place, faking injuries to get guys tossed or penalized. What a mess that will be!

Posted by: Rational_Man | March 17, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

This gentlemen has a great future as a stand up comedian. His reason makes no sense. If you suspect Ovie, fair enough, but everything worse that has gone on in this league should also be suspended. Guess what, it has not. Until the NHL becomes a professional league it will never have the respect that it deserves.

Posted by: jeffreed | March 17, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The answer to all of this is simple: Ovi was punished because he is not Canadian. The other guys got off because they are.

Posted by: woody2471 | March 17, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

For everyone asking about what Campbell said about Cooke's hit, I dont have a link, but I think basically he said that there is no rule against what Cooke did (didn't hit with his elbow, didn't leave his feet, etc) so he couldnt fine/suspend him. I'm not saying it makes sense, just what Campbell said.

Posted by: aglatfelter | March 18, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

For everyone asking about what Campbell said about Cooke's hit, I dont have a link, but I think basically he said that there is no rule against what Cooke did (didn't hit with his elbow, didn't leave his feet, etc) so he couldnt fine/suspend him. I'm not saying it makes sense, just what Campbell said.
Posted by: aglatfelter | March 18, 2010 12:07 AM |

Yep - that's how he's explained it & how I understood it.
It was a hit that was not against the rule.
Maybe the intent was there but he did not address it that way.

Cooke's hit was a legal shoulder check because shoulder checks aren't defined in the rule book.

I am confused as to why CC says he has to find a reason to suspend a repeat offender such as Cooke in the following link??

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=4982930

Posted by: Rocc00 | March 18, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse


Кэмпбелл = Морон

Posted by: hessone | March 18, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Look what the NFL did..you hit a QB in the head..personal foul..period. It does not matter if the QB was hurt. I love Ovie..but players must realize that they can be physical..without senseless plays that have no bearing on the game.

Posted by: blazerguy234 | March 18, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

So, by CC's reasoning, Ovie's main fault is that he is bigger, stronger and faster than his opponents? Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that was a virtue if not a necessity in sports and in life (survival of the fittest, etc.). NASCAR created the 'Car of Tomorrow' (COT) to level the playing field. Perhaps the NHL could take a single player and fill the league with identical clones. Yeah, that could work...

Posted by: AmyS1 | March 18, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Fair point Millburry,
How do we know for sure that Campbell really does have a broken rib and collar bone?

I'd like to think the docs are honest but they surely have a vested interest in exaggerating.

Posted by: rjma1 | March 18, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Why did someone ask him to Compare OV's punishment to a guy who got more games? "Because the answer doesn't make sense in Context where Campbell says "He got more games because this was his first offense."

A better question would be to compare OV's suspension to Craig Adams' boarding of OV himself two months ago, or David Koci's Boarding of Mike Green - both of which didn't even draw a penalty, let alone a suspension."

EXACTLY! AND, he talked about the injury being the reason for the suspension. That's not the rule, though. Players get injured all the time from actual hits, sometimes those hits deserve penalties and get none. Sometimes, they even deserve supplementary discipline but get none.

This guy sounds like a complete d-bag. He talks about dealing with concussions as if it's been on his long laundry list of things to get to. "Oh, GMs have been talking about this for years, so now we're getting around to fixing the problem." You know, because this guy's been so busy ignoring questionable and blatantly wreckless hits.

What does he do? Does he do anything else besides "discipline" players? What's his actual day-job? There's got to be something else he's working on, because he sucks at this job. Building ships in bottles? Stamp-collecting? Jerking Bettman in the airport bathroom? What?

Posted by: fbutler1 | March 18, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Campbell is a tool. I can't say any more, at least on these boards.

Posted by: jwash4472 | March 18, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Why does Ovie get ejected and suspended, but Rod Pelley (NJ) gets a 5-minute Major for Boarding against Pittsburgh last night and he doesn't get ejected.

Rule 42.5 states:
42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

So where's the ejection? Or the review for further disciplinary action?

Is this becase the NHL and Colin Campbell hate Ovie? Or is it because Ovie is Russian and Pelley is Canadian??

What's going on with "setting a precident" and keeping rules/calls/punishments equal????

Posted by: RyanAndOpus | March 18, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Man, Collin Campbell, is just plain stupid. Like everyone said, if you're penalizing or suspending people based on the injury resulting from the hit, why wasn't Cooke suspended? And is Campbell really that stupid that he's going to find fault in a player being bigger and stronger? And then make them regret striving to be a better player or being genetically blessed? Moron. The NHL should vote that mo-fo out. His ties to Pittsburgh and Florida just makes him blatantly biased.

@ Rainier1: I think the word you might be thinking of is "underwhelming". Or my recommendation of two words - He sucked.

Posted by: LeftCoastCapsFan | March 18, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

We all know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but apparently 3 wrongs do. Since, CC erred by not suspending Richards and then used that wrong as a basis for not suspending Cooke, he had to suspend Ovi to make the first 2 wrongs equal a right.
Simple.

Posted by: ds_kelly | March 18, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

This is a joke

Posted by: tird45 | March 18, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There certainly is some bad luck involved here for Ovechkin, but I think that Colin Campbell's reasoning about the extent of the injury mattering is a sound strategy. The NHL justly wants to create incentives that will reduce injuries. Clearly, not all injury-inducing fouls have a malicious intent, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth trying to reduce. And it seems difficult to legislate exactly what a dangerous foul is. So by allowing the punishment to be based -- in part -- on the extent of injury, players are given the incentive to play less dangerously. No, it is not pure justice. Players will be unlucky to cause injury on relatively innocent fouls (perhaps such as in this case), and others will be lucky to cause no injury on hard fouls. But there are a lot of things in the game that depend on luck, and I do think this system will reduce injuries, which is the point. Many legal systems are full of punishments and awards like this. The point is not always justice, but instead to give people the incentive to act in ways that reduce expected costs to society.

Posted by: jsiegel430 | March 18, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse


Wow. Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"? If the NHL won't get rid of Colin Campbell, it should definitely not let him give interviews.

Posted by: ptallen | March 17, 2010 8:44 PM

******************

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: grackle5 | March 18, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The style in which Ovi plays hockey isn't as aggressive as other players, so jsiegel430, it's not so much we don't understand the reasoning but it's the fact that sometimes it's enforced, sometimes it's not. Again, go back to the Cooke hit on Savard. Savard has a concussion. In Campbell's case, he has a broken bone and will return this season. Cooke got what? Ovi got a 2 game suspension. Now, help us understand

Posted by: LeftCoastCapsFan | March 18, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company